Picking the Best Instructional Design Approach for Your Goals

Introduction

Image retrieved from Canva

Instructional design plays a pivotal role in shaping effective learning experiences. An instructional design approach outlines the procedures for structuring the entire design process. Nowadays, there are so many instructional design models that it can get confusing for teachers and trainers to pick one. Models like ADDIE, Dick and Carey, and the Successive Approximation Model, all offer different approaches for planning lessons and training. With several choices, it is hard to know which model is the best for a specific situation. The reading, “A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models,” presents a framework intended to provide a conceptual tool for determining appropriate instructional design applications.

Edmonds, Branch, & Mukherjee Framework

  Edmonds, Branch, and Mukherjee (1994) looked at this problem. The authors argued that, with so many models, it is challenging for teachers and designers to choose the right one. Edmonds, Branch, and Mukherjee (1994) put together a conceptual framework for evaluating the quality and effectiveness of instructional design models. This framework consists of four sets of tasks: review the fundamental components of the design, recognize the contexts of how the instructional design is used, present the conceptual framework to decide appropriate applications, and suggest a matrix to compare instructional design models (Edmond et al., 1994). Looking at the differences can help narrow down choices and select a model that matches the teacher's or designer's training goals. The model framework created by Edmonds, Branch, and Mukherjee provides an organized way to bring together core knowledge by describing key features present in every model. This approach makes picking instructional models more clear for instructional designers and teachers. Although this framework does not rank models from most to least effective, it highlights each model's unique differences. This framework outlines several vital criteria that can be used to analyze and compare different instructional design models.

Image retrieved from Canva

Categories of instructional design methods and components

In their framework for comparing instructional design models, Edmonds et al. (1994) outline six dimensions along which the models can be differentiated:

 Image retrieved from the reading " A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models."

1)    Type of orientation: Prescriptive / Descriptive

Descriptive models describe the learning environment and how it affects variables of interest, while prescriptive models outline how to build an environment to affect variables.

2)    Type of knowledge: Procedural / Declarative

Procedural knowledge focuses on how to reach a goal, while declarative knowledge focuses on why to reach a goal.

3)    Required expertise: Novice / Intermediate / Expert

Novice models are for teachers or novice designers, intermediate models are for teachers with some design experience, and expert models are for instructional designers.

4)    Theoretical origins: Hard Systems / Soft Systems / Intuition

Hard systems models draw on systems theory, while soft systems models use alternative theories like rapid prototyping or bricolage.

5)    Institutional context: Primary + secondary (K-12) / Higher education / Business training / Government training

Models may focus on K-12, higher education, business training, government training, or a combination.

6)    Levels: unit/lesson/module/course/curriculum / institutional / mass

Some models address narrow levels like lessons or units, while others have a broader scope up to institutional or curriculum levels.

Application to Instructional Design Models

Image retrieved from Canva

In reviewing the instructional design models covered in this course, the Edmonds et al. framework provides a valuable lens for analysis. As a future instructional designer, I understand how hard it can be to pick a suitable model from many choices. Having a framework to compare models is very helpful. It gives a structured way to look at different models and decide which one best fits the needs of a particular project. The Edmonds framework allows for systematic appraisal of assets and limitations, that point to opportunities for improvement. This facilitates thoughtful consciousness as instructional designers determine what models or elements best fit their needs and contexts. Also, the framework prompts consideration of the context in which the model is applied, the inputs required at each stage, and the processes involved in implementing and evaluating the instructional design. I found high value in using the framework's focused facets and dimensions to separate strengths from limitations. The framework is thorough yet concise, making it an invaluable evaluation tool that allows designers to make intelligent, well-informed choices and select a model that works well for a project's particular requirements.

Final Thoughts

As instructional design continues to evolve, educators and instructional designers alike are faced with the challenge of selecting the most effective model for their specific learning objectives. Evaluating the quality of instructional design models involves assessing theoretical reliability and practical applicability. Edmonds and colleagues' conceptual framework provides a valuable multidimensional tool for analyzing model effectiveness. Comprehensively examining alignment, cohesion, and functionality moves beyond superficial assessments to deeply understand a model's pros, cons, and potential improvements. This framework equips instructional designers to make discerning model selections and evidence-based adaptations. The framework supports the development of robust, rigorous instructional design through intentional and strategic model integration and implementation.

References

Edmonds, G. S., Branch, R. C., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for 12345comparing instructional design models. Educational Technology Research and 12345Development, 42(4), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02298055